Create and answer a "Who is the most and least moral in this situation?" thread

[Tristitian]

In this "game", we create a somewhat morally gray situation and decide who is most/least at fault. It's a fun game.

Here's a simple start:

---------------------------------------------

Student A finds a copy of a future chemistry exam. Seeing the opportunity he has, he takes pictures of the exam and passes them out discretely to friends B-D. He also gives it to guy E, who is an acquaintance that he hangs out around often. He trusts that none of the students will tell the teacher about the exam. Student A does not use the exam himself, but is perfectly happy handing it out to the friends he cares about to ensure that they will pass the exam.

Guy E - for whatever reason: honor code, douchebaggery, or just because he could - reports the other students after being given the pictures of the exam. By doing this, he throws the people who planned on helping him under the bus, but respects the wishes of the teacher.

Teacher tells all the students in her class to fess up. Avoiding humiliation in class, the cheating students decide to wait until the next day to confront the teacher and admit to their mistakes in the hopes that the teacher will forgive them, at least partially.

Student B decides that she will go early, and pleads innocence to the teacher. The teacher believes that student B has been innocent. To other students, student B says that she was peer pressured into cheating - which may or, most likely, may not be true. She also rats out the other students by name - something guy E did not do.

Due to student B going early, the teacher calls the rest of the cheating students out in class - even though they planned on telling her once class was over.


Who is the most/least moral in this situation? Post your own situation.

 

[Reluctantly]

imo,

Teacher is a douche for not rewriting the test after knowing they had seen it. Now she/he is playing some kind of judge and showing that he/she cares more about instilling personal values of right and wrong, instead of teaching the students a particular subject, which is all a teacher is supposed to do. Teachers are not parents or a judge in court. I could argue immoral just for this reason.

For student A,
Not moral or immoral, considering everyone got in trouble for it, though it was probably not the intent. But Student A is probably a dumb-ass for thinking this would not get out; student A's problem is a lack of wisdom on human behavior. Student A is the person that tries to help, but makes things worse in doing so.

Guy E,
Don't know about moral or immoral, but I could see a case being made if knowing the test means that the students will not know the material as well. A multiple choice exam could present this problem. On the other hand, some tests are just fill in the blank of most of what's been learned, concept and detail-focused. In such a case, having the exam could help the students to focus their studying better. Don't really give a shit about whether that's fair or not, since every aspect of life involves other people knowing things you don't and you knowing things they don't.

student B,
Immoral douche, because this student believes by screwing other people over, she/he can benefit. Pathetic and unscrupulous, weak-willed person. If this student was truly moral, he/she would provide a way to make it fair for everyone involved, instead of helping only them-self, and yet not have to admit to anything at all. Examples such as everyone getting the exam if it would help learning or the test being rewritten, but any reasonable solution would work.

edit:

so

potentially moral or immoral, depending on the reasons -> Guy E
neither moral, nor immoral -> Student A
immoral -> teacher
very immoral -> student B

 

[QuickTwist]

Person A or person E are most at fault.

A because they shared this knowledge with others naively thinking no one would do anything about it.

Person E for being a snitch. That person had no business saying anything at all to the teacher who otherwise wouldn't know a god damn thing about it.

 

[Grayman]

Everyone is only responsible for themselves. A is responsible for stealing the test in the first place.

Their responsibility is equal and their own so it doesn't matter who told who or what.

 

[Jennywocky]

They all made a decision to cheat or not cheat. A made it easier for them by placing the answers within reach (which makes him a bit of a douche); but none were obligated to cheat. If any of them are in the predicament, it is because they made decisions that placed them there.

E had the option to just not cheat himself, but instead told the teacher there were cheaters. It is very unlikely he did this to actively help the other students "learn the material"; he simply finked on people without letting them know up front he was going to tell the teacher people had cheated. So in that sense he kind of stepped beyond his bounds and created a drama.

B likewise overstepped boundaries by finking on people by name, possibly to earn more forgiveness. That shows a lack of willingness to take responsibility for cheating, by making others bear the brunt of B's initial choice to cheat.

Moral? It depends on what your morals are. But obviously from a position of morality = taking individual responsibility and leaving others to be responsibile for their own choices, this situation had a number of people overstepping their individual bounds.

PS. The teacher should take some responsibility for the test being left lying around.

 

[Absurdity]

IMO in the OP the stakes are too low/the given scenario is too vague.

Here's a more interesting case:

You're a detective in a decaying Rustbelt hellhole plagued with 30%+ unemployment, drug use, and gang violence. Law and order has all but collapsed.

You receive a tip that a "doctor" on the outskirts of town is performing unlicensed abortions, including late-term abortions, for free. Technically it's out of your jurisdiction, but you don't care.

You go by after hours. After entering the front door, which has been left ajar, the doctor comes at you out of the gloom of the filthy house with a knife. You disarm him and handcuff him to the railing on the staircase. Then you hear crying.

In the back room is where the doctor has been doing his experiments: grafting new limbs to unwanted infants, splicing heads onto foreign torsos. Some of these hideous things are still alive, wailing. Pickle jars full of horror-show carnival attractions. You take out your gun and put down each of the wretched creatures. Then, out of bullets, you return to the main room where the doctor is sniveling, and kill him with his own knife, letting him bleed out slowly. Before leaving, you douse the building in gasoline and burn it to the ground.

Were you acting morally?

 

[Grayman]

IMO in the OP the stakes are too low/the given scenario is too vague.

Here's a more interesting case:

You're a detective in a decaying Rustbelt hellhole plagued with 30%+ unemployment, drug use, and gang violence. Law and order has all but collapsed.

You receive a tip that a "doctor" on the outskirts of town is performing unlicensed abortions, including late-term abortions, for free. Technically it's out of your jurisdiction, but you don't care.

You go by after hours. After entering the front door, which has been left ajar, the doctor comes at you out of the gloom of the filthy house with a knife. You disarm him and handcuff him to the railing on the staircase. Then you hear crying.

In the back room is where the doctor has been doing his experiments: grafting new limbs to unwanted infants, splicing heads onto foreign torsos. Some of these hideous things are still alive, wailing. Pickle jars full of horror-show carnival attractions. You take out your gun and put down each of the wretched creatures. Then, out of bullets, you return to the main room where the doctor is sniveling, and kill him with his own knife, letting him bleed out slowly. Before leaving, you douse the building in gasoline and burn it to the ground.

Were you acting morally?

No but at least try and save the least mutilated one. There doesn'tdoesn't seem to be anyone to take care of the rest. Is there a place for them and will the city cover the cost of doctoring up their bodies?

 

[Jennywocky]

Why is that at all more interesting? It sounds horrendously black and white to me.

it would have been far more interesting if you hadn't made it into a one-dimensional "American Horror Story" scenario. You want it to be CONFUSING to respond to, not easy.

So let's say the doctor doesn't come at you with a knife. Say he quietly and kindly answers the door (which is padlocked a few times) and checks you out before he lets you in -- after all he has fragile patients here who he needs to look after, and thugs who might want into his house to steal drugs. he only leaves you in because he's convinced you are a cop who wants to help these girls, and because you lie to him about wanting to shut him down.

inside, he is counseling female patients, girls who actually need his help and who cannot support an infant on their own. So the abortions actually seem to make sense, and he's doing it for free, to help these girls and make their lives better after their boyfriends knock them up and leave them with a baby on the way. In fact you recognize some of these girls and know their lives are better not having a baby in tow, nor do you want kids to grow up in that environment.

in THAT situation, as you are preparing to leave, you discover the secret room... where the doctor has been performing his mad experiments.

NOW... what is the moral thing to do?

 

[Grayman]

NOW... what is the moral thing to do?

Still easy. Kill the fucker.

You should have just left the secret room out and left it at the abortions because there is already enough divide on what is moral in that regard. Not to mention he is using a back door establishment that is illegal and pssibly unsafe for the women and he has no medical credentials anynmore due to malpractice...

The real moral issue in abs deal was killing the babies who were innocent and possibly savable. Having a head sown to your torso can be undone. There is no point in putting a bullet in the kids head.

 

[Jennywocky]

Still easy. Kill the fucker.

You should have just left the secret room out and left it at the abortions because there is already enough divide on what is moral in that regard. Not to mention he is using a back door establishment that is illegal and pssibly unsafe for the women and he has no medical credentials anynmore due to malpractice...

The real moral issue in abs deal was killing the babies who were innocent and possibly savable. Having a head sown to your torso can be undone. There is no point in putting a bullet in the kids head.

Actually, it depends on the age of the fetus as to how people will view it.

And by killing him, you've now damned all those young girls to even worse hell by taking away the only guy who actually still was caring for them. I think it's interesting that the answer is SO clear to you, you didn't even flinch.

Anyway, which evil is worse would be the question here. I don't think morality is determined by choosing an obvious good over an obvious evil; I think it's determined by how we choose one evil over another.

 

[Grayman]

Actually, it depends on the age of the fetus as to how people will view it.

And by killing him, you've now damned all those young girls to even worse hell by taking away the only guy who actually still was caring for them. I think it's interesting that the answer is SO clear to you, you didn't even flinch.

Anyway, which evil is worse would be the question here. I don't think morality is determined by choosing an obvious good over an obvious evil; I think it's determined by how we choose one evil over another.

It's so clear because I'm holding to the 'each person is responsible for their own choices' thinking. The fact the women would have to raise a child or find a shady doctor is their doing not mine. If one of them was raped, I will pay for a legit doctor myself but this guy will still die because the prisons are full and I cannot let him off to kill or mutilate more babies.

 

[Cognisant]

Morality is an arbitrary social construct used to convert and control.

As a matter of practicality with the cheating on the test scenario the only thing that matters is that I didn't get caught. Whether that's because I didn't accept the answers in the first place or convinced the teacher I only took them out of peer pressure and threw them away, it doesn't really matter. As far as I'm concerned everyone involved was acting based upon their own reasoning and subjective perspective and since we're all fallible humans with only limited information to work with I can't retroactively condemn/praise their choices anymore than I can condemn/praise my own.

If I wasn't involved and it doesn't affect me I just don't care, it's quite simply none of my business.

Likewise with the illegal abortion clinic what people choose to do with their lives largely doesn't affect me, however in saying that just like with the test scenario I'm not without my own personal bias. If the doctor is performing useful research I might choose to help him, if he's just some nutcase with a knife I'll kill him, if he's a seemingly competent doctor who just happens to have sick hobbies... I don't know, I might kill him and I might not, he clearly serves a function to a society that requires it but I don't require his services and I might just want to kill a man just to see what it's like, given his hobbies it's not like any jury would convict me.

It depends what mood I'm in.

Heck if your the deterministic/fatalistic sort my choice is already made, we're just not sufficiently advanced through time to know what it is yet.

 

[Jennywocky]

It's so clear because I'm holding to the 'each person is responsible for their own choices' thinking. The fact the women would have to raise a child or find a shady doctor is their doing not mine. If one of them was raped, I will pay for a legit doctor myself but this guy will still die because the prisons are full and I cannot let him off to kill or mutilate more babies.

That's better.

So everyone is born onto an equal-level playing field, meaning they are all in equal standing for the responsibility for the situations they find themselves in. (That's one assumption there.)

And you plan to pay for the abortion for every girl who might have been raped or who you can verify (how?) was raped in that situation?

And what if someone shoots you in turn because you are now "evil" for paying for abortions for raped women?

See, the devil is in the details.

 

[Grayman]

That's better.

So everyone is born onto an equal-level playing field, meaning they are all in equal standing for the responsibility for the situations they find themselves in. (That's one assumption there.)

And you plan to pay for the abortion for every girl who might have been raped or who you can verify (how?) was raped in that situation?

And what if someone shoots you in turn because you are now "evil" for paying for abortions for raped women?

See, the devil is in the details.

Still, helping those women is not a part of my moral obligation, except where I can reasonable and sustainably do so. It was more a product of my empathy. Creating and establishing a self sustainable community would be the most prudent option for them. If nothing else, a detective should know where to find other illegal doctors who are not causing damage to the lives of others.

 

[Jennywocky]

So illegal is not necessarily immoral in this case... even though you are a detective whose job it is to uphold the law?

 

[Absurdity]

Why is that at all more interesting? It sounds horrendously black and white to me.

How is that not more interesting than some trivial gradeschool cheating story?

That said I did write it in like 2 minutes cause I was late for work c:

 

[Jennywocky]

How is that not more interesting than some trivial gradeschool cheating story?

That said I did write it in like 2 minutes cause I was late for work c:

You should have included kobolds.

Kobolds who cheat on tests and perform illict experiments on humans in the basement.

 

[Grayman]

So illegal is not necessarily immoral in this case... even though you are a detective whose job it is to uphold the law?

Legality, honor, integrity, all self sustaining ego feeding and selfish bullshit. Fuck the Nazis and their law, I'll save the Jew and lie in every occasion to do so.

 

[Cognisant]

So Jenny you're into kobolds?

Spoiler

I had no idea that was your thing

 

[Jennywocky]

Legality, honor, integrity, all self sustaining ego feeding and selfish bullshit. Fuck the Nazis and their law, I'll save the Jew and lie in every occasion to do so.

Heh. I was just curious how you were reconciling the contradictions since you hadn't explained and since it could cost you your job. (Shooting a doctor rather than going through legal channels? Encouraging illegal activity? I mean, within your example, basically you already work for the Nazis for a paycheck.) Apparently the "better to burn out than to fade away" mentality works here.

Anyway... just asking questions, and no one else is participating at the moment, so... you're the only person I can talk to about it at the moment.

... I'm not really sure what I'd do. I'd probably (1) confront the doctor, and (2) if that fails to end the basement experiments, I'd probably report what he was doing [the basement experiments]. I don't think I'd report the abortion business itself. I don't think I'd kill the guy myself unless things went really really poorly.

 

[Grayman]

Anyway... just asking questions, and no one else is participating at the moment, so... you're the only person I can talk to about it at the moment.

I'm just having fun with the game. For me morality is really simple and I managed to define a single code that contains it. The hard parts is identifying the results of my actions and properly utilizing honesty, integrity, and legality as tools but not as moral acts in themselves.

Anyway... just asking questions, and no one else is participating at the moment, so... you're the only person I can talk to about it at the moment.

... I'm not really sure what I'd do. I'd probably (1) confront the doctor, and (2) if that fails to end the basement experiments, I'd probably report what he was doing [the basement experiments]. I don't think I'd report the abortion business itself. I don't think I'd kill the guy myself unless things went really really poorly.

Why would you give him a chance and risk an innocent life when there is only evidence to suggest that he would continue in his immoral actions and this time go to even greater efforts to hide it?

 

[Jennywocky]

Why would you give him a chance and risk an innocent life when there is only evidence to suggest that he would continue in his immoral actions and this time go to even greater efforts to hide it?

I did not offer a hard timeline.

I'd talk to him before I left (whether that meant threatening/intimidating him or what) and see what his response was and whether I believed him. I'd also have surveillance on him. IOW, I would give him time to clean up his act. Why? because:

- I think the service he provides, even if I don't particularly like abortion, is contextually necessary and provides help toward young teens in an even worse situation. Those people are also alive, have built lives, etc.

- He's a human being like anyone else, and I'd like to give him a change to repent before taking further action. He is definitely working in an unsettling dark-grey area, using human material like product; but he could stop that and still be able to continue the good he was also doing. (Best case scenario.)

- I'm a detective. I guess it depends on whether I'm a private detective or one who works for the police. If it's the former, I'm my own boss; but I am still likely licensed (?). In any case, I have a code of some kind to live by. I'll flex it, but I'm not typically going to shoot a guy preemptively in cold blood especially when there is a possibility he could choose to change his behavior. If I can't follow the code, I should turn in my badge and THEN do what I want. (Kinda like Harry Callahan throwing his police badge in the pit at the end of Dirty Harry.)

I think those things are more important than giving him a chance to "hide his activities." Like I said, there would be surveillance, and I'd be watching him / suspecting him, so ... he'd get caught and then there would be a reckoning.

In the end, "doing good" is more important than "punishing evil" to me. It's worth the risk, as long as you're not stupid/gullible about it.

 

[Grayman]

In the end, "doing good" is more important than "punishing evil" to me. It's worth the risk, as long as you're not stupid/gullible about it.

Suppose one day after all this, you end up facing his handiwork once more. You now know you had the chance to keep this from happening and yet another life is destroyed because you made a choice not to kill him. Are you at fault?

Is he not replaceable? Is he the only doctor that would do abortions? How is saving a child even comparable to making some teen woman's life easier?

 

[Jennywocky]

Suppose one day after all this, you end up facing his handiwork once more. You now know you had the chance to keep this from happening and yet another life is destroyed because you made a choice not to kill him. Are you at fault?

Another life is not destroyed.
I don't considered 'fetuses' to be 'babies' like you do.
Case closed.

Is he not replaceable? Is he the only doctor that would do abortions?

In that area, if girls are going to him? And he's doing them for free because they can't get help? Yeah, actually he probably is.

This is another time when you're talking "high level concepts" without really digging into gritty reality, IMO. You make lots of assumptions about what is accessible and how easy it is to get the help you need if you're a poverty-stricken girl in a drug-and-crime environment and no adults looking out for her. Based on the scenario, it is very likely he is the only provider for this particular geographic subset of women.

How is saving a child even comparable to making some teen woman's life easier?

It's not saving a child.

But I do consider it exploiting said women while pretending to be purely altruistic.

It is also not simply "making their lives easier."
(Jesus, you make it sound like he's paying for their cable TV or giving them free backrubs.)
Did you ever really dig into the data on "outcome" on this stuff?

---
Still, if he were stealing their babies after a natural birth, so that they were entirely viable; and lying about what he was doing with them; and experimenting with them in the basement? That would be different.

 

[Grayman]

For me it has nothing to do with justice. It is simply a matter of probability and what is worth the risk. I cannot see a person doing these acts and not being mentally stable enough to keep from doing it again or something else just as bad or worse.

 

[Grayman]

Another life is not destroyed.
I don't considered 'fetuses' to be 'babies' like you do.
Case closed.



In that area, if girls are going to him? And he's doing them for free because they can't get help? Yeah, actually he probably is.

This is another time when you're talking "high level concepts" without really digging into gritty reality, IMO. You make lots of assumptions about what is accessible and how easy it is to get the help you need if you're a poverty-stricken girl in a drug-and-crime environment. Based on the scenario, it is very likely he is the only provider for this particular geographic subset of women.



It's not saving a child.

But I do consider it exploiting said women while pretending to be purely altruistic.

Now, if he were stealing their babies after a natural birth, so that they were entirely viable; and lying about what he was doing with them; and experimenting with them in the basement? That would be different.

?

Absurdity said the doctor was grafting body parts onto 'infants' not fetus. I was not refering to the abortions. I am not certain why you have so much focus on that....maybe because I used the word baby instead of infant...

 

[Jennywocky]

For me it has nothing to do with justice. It is simply a matter of probability and what is worth the risk. I cannot see a person doing these acts and not being mentally stable enough to keep from doing it again or something else just as bad or worse.

Oh, okay, so it's the "crazy" card.

"Well, if he's doing this, he must be CRAZY, so.... he'll start doing crazy shit to those GIRLS too or at the least won't even be able to stop doing this, so I should just kill him now."

I mean, you're assuming he can't honestly quit.
So no need to offer him a chance.
Which is fine, at least it's clear logic.
But that's the assumption.

My assumption is that, depending on the vibes I get from him, he might or might not be able to. My decision is based on that initial convo and my overall evaluation of his state.

?

Absurdity said the doctor was grafting body parts onto 'infants' not fetus. I was not refering to the abortions. I am not certain why you have so much focus on that....maybe because I used the word baby instead of infant...

Maybe that's my fault. I haven't looked back at the initial scenario for awhile, and if you are giving girls abortions, it typically doesn't mean they have a 9-month delivered baby or "infant" -- you're dealing with fetuses if you're having abortions.

I mean, seriously, if you are aborting infants who are viable, at that point you're just delivering them -- not aborting them. The world "abort" makes no sense.

 

[Grayman]

I mean, seriously, if you are aborting infants who are viable, at that point you're just delivering them -- not aborting them. The world "abort" makes no sense.

I don't know where this is coming from or if it is a joke or something...

My greatest priority is the infants he is killing by his experiments. The well being of the potential-mothers who are more capable of taking care of themselves at least more than an infant are less of a concern, but still a concern. I am avoiding the fetus or baby debate for the sake of the argument or this whole thing might explode into another abortion debate.

 

[The Introvert]

Just saying,

if a guy is giving out abortions so that he can graft body parts together of the (sometimes still living) infants, I would be getting "bad vibes" from him.

So, I guess the question comes down to... what actually is going on? Is he aborting (killing) the fetuses? If it is a late-term pregnancy, he's killing a child, no question. What difference does it make if he killed it before or after he started experimenting on it? He still killed it for some kind of sick pleasure...

If it's an early-term abortion, it's still undeniably fucked up that he's playing with them, just a little less fucked up I guess since that term is subjective and could imply it's indistinguishable from any other kind of fetus... which I still think is wildly disturbing, but whatever. This is the only instance in which I wouldn't immediately call the cops/ take out the sick fucker myself. I would probably just call the cops, because, as I said before, anyone who is doing this kind of thing has issues that are above and beyond your normal fantasies. In short: the guy is a danger to society and innocent lives, and needs to be stopped immediately.

 

[Grayman]

Jenny's revision remolded to fit what I think her revision was...

Doctor doing abortions.
Doctor has fetus in the other room sown together and mutilated in various ways.


MY revision toward this story is to monitor the to patients health without the doctor knowing, in order to determine the quality of care the patients are receiving.

 

[Brontosaurie]

one person lies about his/her breakfast. another person lies about his/her table.

who is at fault?

 

[Jennywocky]

one person lies about his/her breakfast. another person lies about his/her table.

who is at fault?

Both are crazy.
I would rather lie in bed.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Both are crazy.
I would rather lie in bed.

what would you lie about in bed? an elongated pillow?

 

[Jennywocky]

I don't know where this is coming from or if it is a joke or something...

Why on earth would that be a joke?

You can't abort a baby that's at term.
You would be actually delivering the baby, then killing it outside the womb.

The term "Abort" is used when you're killing a fetus... i.e., a developing fetus that isn't viable.

My greatest priority is the infants he is killing by his experiments. The well being of the potential-mothers who are more capable of taking care of themselves at least more than an infant are less of a concern, but still a concern. I am avoiding the fetus or baby debate for the sake of the argument or this whole thing might explode into another abortion debate.

I don't care to discuss abortion rights, but your terminology is contradictory for you to use the word "abortion" and "infant" together. it's confusing me. I'm talking about non-viable fetuses, and you keep responding to me as if I'm talking about babies who can live on their own outside the mother's womb.

If fetuses are "infants" to you, then fine. I don't share that understanding. But it explains why we have different opinions on what he's doing. If he was delivering "infants" from mothers who couldn't care for them, then I would expect him to be putting them up for adoption somewhere rather than using them for scientific experiments in the basement.

 

[Grayman]

The unwanted infants in the back room that were mutilated have no connection with the fetus removed during abortion. I never stated any concern one way or the other for what happens to the fetus. Whenever I used the word baby in my arguments it was in reference to the infants. I talked about these infants dying because I assumed it the inevitable result of these experiments. I am not aware of ever talking about the fetus dying.

In that last sentence you seem to be interpreting my usage of 'killing' as abortion. Killing, however, is in reference to the end results of his experiments on the infants.

 

[The Introvert]

Annnnnd interesting thread derailed....

 

[QuickTwist]

Everyone is moral and not moral in this situation... it depends on the lens you view things through that determines what is the norm at this circumstance.. but that's what OP is talking about so I shut up now...

 

[Grayman]

Annnnnd interesting thread derailed....

A lot of people here are conflating derailing with healthy topical meandering. Two very different things.

 

[The Introvert]

I don't see the original post by Absurdity: I assume that he deleted it, or that you made it up TO SPITE ME, YOU DEVILISH BASTARD!!!

But... my rule of thumb is that once the thread resorts to who said what, and what the technical terms mean (and we change the discussion from the TOPIC to the WORDS USED) then it's a derail. You guys ended up not talking about moral issues at all but rather whether or not an aborted fetus is called a child, baby, infant, or none of the above.

I'll start a new story, since I have some time to spare.

You're a scientist at a large research company, and you're experimenting with various carcinogenic compounds in order to better understand chemical reactions, genetics, mutations, and what have you about cancer. One day while in the lab, you spill some chemicals onto a section of cells that are in your petri dish. Frustrated, you start to clean up the mess you have made, when a colleague comes in with a problem he is trying to solve. You leave to help him out, leaving your mess the way it was. It's late, so when you're done helping your colleague, you decide to close up the lab and go home.

You're back first thing in the morning to the lab. You go over to the bench, and see the mess leftover from yesterday, that you completely forgot about. Being a curious scientist, you put the contents under the microscope... to find that all of the cancer cells have died, and the living tissue is thriving!

You never expected to actually cure cancer when you took the job, and merely accepted the position to pay the bills. Now that you've taken time to think about the situation, you realize... you won't get credit for your discovery. Assuming the multitude of tests afterwards confirm your discovery, you won't gain recognition for your find. In fact, you probably won't even be promoted; your contract binds your accomplishments to the company you work for, and they will reap the fame (not to mention the money) while you languish as an unknown. Maybe you'll get some air time as "the scientist that cured cancer", but nobody will remember you or your accomplishments.

But, you cannot publish your results without the assistance of your company. You can't do the research yourself and claim ownership because the materials are far too expensive. You're stuck in your lab-rat job, doomed to a life overcast by the success of the company you work for. Your cure will become mass-produced and make trillions while you toil away.

Deciding to take time to think about what you should do, you wait a few weeks, performing experiments in secret. You decide to hold off on revealing the discovery until your contract is up, so you can take the fame for yourself (you don't care THAT much about the money, although it would be nice). You keep the secret recipe locked in a box in your basement, because you're paranoid someone will steal it.

On your way to the lab one day, you get into a car crash and burn to a crisp, leaving your discovery stuck in a chest in your basement. Your house forecloses and after a while, it gets torn down and built over; the secret cure is effectively lost forever.

Yes, you are dead. But are you dead morally, too?
What about the company?

 

[OrLevitate]

everyone's wrong for not immediately ceasing consciousness upon trying to be right

euc slarom tnerascihte - elven proverb about a chocobo chasing his tail

 

[Grayman]

@Introvert

I pulled it from the 'derailment' thread.

And no that was not what we were talking about.

 

[dark+matters]

imo,

Teacher is a douche for not rewriting the test after knowing they had seen it. Now she/he is playing some kind of judge and showing that he/she cares more about instilling personal values of right and wrong, instead of teaching the students a particular subject, which is all a teacher is supposed to do. Teachers are not parents or a judge in court. I could argue immoral just for this reason.

I agree with this. In my opinion, the teacher is the only theoretically immoral one (although I personally have zero interest on cheating on tests or assignments even if I fail). It's the teacher's responsibility to adapt to students' learning needs within reason. The teacher should've made greater efforts to hide the answers, and if that didn't work, he or she should have made a new test. I don't think the students are necessarily immoral, as they have significantly less power and have to survive the demands of the system however they can. They're not going to be in as good a place to resist temptation. But it's hard to say without more information.

 

[DrSketchpad]

imo,

Teacher is a douche for not rewriting the test after knowing they had seen it. Now she/he is playing some kind of judge and showing that he/she cares more about instilling personal values of right and wrong, instead of teaching the students a particular subject, which is all a teacher is supposed to do. Teachers are not parents or a judge in court. I could argue immoral just for this ....

Wait - you argue that the teacher made the immoral choice of choosing to instill values of right and wrong?

 

[The Grey Man]

Tristitian:

Student E is the most moral for rejecting the chance to cheat.
Students A-D are the least moral for cheating and hiding the truth from everyone while in the classroom.
Student B is no less moral for "naming names." Her friends were going to come clean anyway, or so they said. The only way she's the least moral is if she was lying about having been peer-pressured in order to be vindicated (which, given the wording of the OP, is probable).

Oh, and the teacher did nothing wrong.

The Introvert:

I wasn't immoral any more than I was suicidal.

 

[Reluctantly]

Wait - you argue that the teacher made the immoral choice of choosing to instill values of right and wrong?

Immoral, yes, because the teacher forced her/his values of right and wrong. It would be different if the teacher's aim was to teach the children about morality, how cheating could be moral or immoral, depending on various aspects/variables. But this doesn't seem to be the teacher's intent. I don't think it's good for people to be told what to believe, rather than decide for themselves what to believe for... seemingly obvious reasons.

 

[Brontosaurie]

one person speaks without probing for interest
another person isn't interested and doesn't listen

who is to blame?

 

[Grayman]

one person speaks without probing for interest
another person isn't interested and doesn't listen

who is to blame?

Sounds like the both got what they wanted. How is it immoral?

 

[The Introvert]

The Introvert:

I wasn't immoral any more than I was suicidal.

So what about the countless people afflicted with cancer?

Also, I too am confused as to how the teacher could have been morally wrong. Sounds like a case of victim-blaming to me... Certainly the teacher could have hidden the test answers better, but that doesn't excuse the actions of those that stole them.

 

[The Grey Man]

So what about the countless people afflicted with cancer?

They would have been cured as soon as I was liberated from my contract.

Although...the people who died of cancer between my discovering the cure and revealing it may make swallowing my pride the moral thing to do.

I change my mind: I'm the least moral, followed by the company that trivializes it's employees.

 

[The Introvert]

I take probably a fairly strange stance.

I don't think you (scientist) have any moral obligation at all to serve to greater good of humanity. That is to say, I don't feel as though it is your duty to present a cure to the world if you don't want to; you haven't given the people the disease, and withholding information is your right as an individual. Most would probably disagree, but it is my opinion that the mind is something that others shouldn't be allowed access to if the owner doesn't want it.

That being said, I personally would have bitten the bullet and revealed the cure the moment I realized it was there. Again, not to say I would do so because it's the morally correct thing to do, but rather... legally I would feel obligated, given my employment status.